Slashdot Mirror


Maxwell's Demon Soon A Reality?

DMiax writes "Reuters reports that a group of scientists from University of Edimburgh may have realized a nanomolecular engine - a Maxwell's Demon. The device selects and traps other molecules based on their direction of motion. Physicist James Maxwell first imagined the nano-scale device in 1867, and the research team cites him as the basis for their understanding of how lights, heat, and molecules interact. The device is powered by light, and may spur advances in nano-scale technology to new heights in coming years."

5 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Light coming in? by DarthChris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I may be wrong in this, since I haven't studied thermodynamics since I was doing my A-Levels, but I believe that the light coming in and powering it directly violates the setup for Maxwell's Demon. Can someone confirm or deny this?

    --
    Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
    1. Re:Light coming in? by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's right. Maxwell's demon is a demon. A supernatural being not subject to the laws of physics. He can arbitrarily effect the system without being affected by it. Thus there is no widening of the sytem by his introduction and no feedback effects from his actions. That's the whole point of him.

      Maxwell's demon could sort a mixed bag of apples and oranges into two bags of apples only and oranges only while preserving an apples and oranges system.

      If you sort a bag of apples and oranges the system is one of apples and oranges and you. I presume you are not a demon; despite what I may have heard.

      KFG

  2. WTF? by arkham6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this article written for scientific morons?

    "it does not need energy because it is powered by light."

    As I understand it, the object the demon works on has to be isolated from the universe. If this 'demon' is powered by light, its not isolated, because outside influences are acting on it.

    I think maxwell's thought experiment still stands, thanks come again.

  3. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Stile+65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, better reference is here.

    --
    I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
  4. Re:Nanotechnology by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's wrong with the present?
    The present is freaking awesome . There are entire new categories of awesomeness that didn't even exist a hundred years ago, and it's getting better all the time. If I even started listing them, I'd sound utopian, even though it's not an unrealized future I'm describing, but the actual present. There is no-when I'd rather live, if I can only select from the past, and assuming I don't get to chose who I'd end up as (an assumption that people frequently sneak in; are you sure you want to live in 1500 if you are almost certain to end up a dirt-poor peasant somewhere or other?).

    But since the present actually exists, we can see its problems. As freaking awesome as it is, it is still far from perfect.

    But the future doesn't actually exist as anything but our dreams. So, natually, it has no problems. So the future is even awesomer, and the present sucks to the extent that it doesn't live up to my awesome future dreams.

    People who have actually taken a look at the future in a clear-eyed way say it'll still have problems, and it's still anybody's guess as to whether they'll be bigger or smaller than the problems of today. Still, since staying in the present doesn't really seem to be an option, it seems we'll find out. One thing's for sure, we won't be jumping straight to a mystical paradise anytime soon.

    In the meantime... enjoy what is here and what you have. If you're certain the present sucks, it will... for you. Why add the misery of thinking everything sucks more than it actually does to the still-real misery that life often offers you?